BTW are Log Cabin Republicans real? Or are they like Bigfoot and aliens, talked about but never seen.

When I worked at Levin ( a furniture store in the Cleveland area) one of the salesmen would always talk about how he "used" to be a memember of the group. He was defintely gay, and amazingly I didn't hate him like I should have seeing as I am part of those 80%.

...or is it 90% Whatever guess I didn't read the recent Republican memo that all conservatives have to hate gays.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

I know we have busted balls from time to time and I can step over the line when I get all worked up and be a dick, and you and Adam have called me on that correctly, so I want you to know it wasn't the case this time. That wasn't aimed at you whatsoever. Just chopping it up in hypotheticals.

Second, whet you were told at 17 was probably right. Then. You're just fucked coming up in the otts, man. Bad run since 2000. can't stay like this forever. You have a ways to go if you're still looking upward to the big 30.

Thanks for a good discussion today.

I know, didnt feel as you were attacking me, I just relate things to my situation most of the time. The mindset of high school kids all needing to go to college needs to be looked at again. It shouldnt be a given and a 4 year holding pattern to avoid responsibility, drink and do drugs. It is too expensive to do that anymore. Needs to start focusing on efficiency over the well-rounded bullshit. There wasn't a student at my school that would have a less valuable degree albeit less "well rounded" in three years over four. Would have saved everyone there 30 large, but how else would they have money to pay professors 125k to teach 6 classes a week.

I know I have a long way to go, that's why I figured I would bite the bullet, play the game and get my MBA at night at a respectable school in a respectable program while I can. As part of the hidden value I was talking about, since moving to a new area and knowing about 4 people I have broadened my connections base significantly to the point where I should be able to make a few good career moves based on those relationships. Its all a gamble I do know that, and there is no sure thing.

BTW are Log Cabin Republicans real? Or are they like Bigfoot and aliens, talked about but never seen.

When I worked at Levin ( a furniture store in the Cleveland area) one of the salesmen would always talk about how he "used" to be a memember of the group. He was defintely gay, and amazingly I didn't hate him like I should have seeing as I am part of those 80%.

...or is it 90% Whatever guess I didn't read the recent Republican memo that all conservatives have to hate gays.

You don't hate gay people? I don't hate gay people. Shit, what does that leave three or four more people in the entire GOP that don't hate gays. This is all based on calculations provided by Keith Olbermann so it is probably dead on.

Don't geta ll emo, OJ. You're still clearly not reading what I write, or I am doing a shitty job writing it. In bold.

Orenthal wrote:After that first paragraph we get:1.Fox is greedy. No, Fox is business smart. That's their job- profits.2.Fox ruined the gritty REAL way musical acts get started. No, Fox has ratcheted it up a notch or twelve. Clearly they are aganda driven. What they are doing now is potentially changing the game as far as how POTUS candidates emerge. Is it good or bad? ; think about it. 3.Obligitory "centrist" nutty people to left and right. (Only left of you is Dennis K.) Bull and crap. NEEEXT!4.Can't lower taxes, cuz we are in debt. What I wrote was we can't lower taxes without a significant promise that growth revenues off set deficit. How is that leftist? 5.Long winded nod for Obama's health care restructure. Quick summary of why it was not realistic to stay the course and full admission I have no freaking idea how this is going to work out as the details need to be implimented and the markets need to react. Fore anyone to hail all of this as "good" or "bad" is just not rational yet.6.Stimulus worked, they must not have read JB's post. More to the stimulus that what has been spent, including billlions in future third frontier investments. Far too soon to gage outsomes related to the entire program. Think of it as analogous to the nasa mission to the moon in the 60's.7.Don't know how much better it would have been if we did nothing. See 1920-21. I'm just going off bsde what that wild liberal ben Bernake says.8.Took this long to blame Bush? When did i do this? I praised HW.9.Fan of infrastructure waste? Check out East 9th street. Right. A singular example indicates a pattern when the scle is millions of projects. Shocker - governement projects can go bad. Neext!10.China subsidizes Green Energy because they have a ready market in the US. Let's out subsidize the socialists. China is strategically pursuing green energy such as enhanced batteries. China will probably beat us on low value goods like photo-votaic cells. We have to find ways we can trump them with manuacturing sector progress in sustainable areas. 11.Obama fixing rationally, Clinton did good, furthest left of the recent Republicans did good. (Hillary is also left of JB.) Now yer just whining and pissing.12.Alexander Hamilton would be wayyyyy to the right of you. Only in the same manner Glenn Beck touts TJ as a role model for him.

BTW are Log Cabin Republicans real? Or are they like Bigfoot and aliens, talked about but never seen.

When I worked at Levin ( a furniture store in the Cleveland area) one of the salesmen would always talk about how he "used" to be a memember of the group. He was defintely gay, and amazingly I didn't hate him like I should have seeing as I am part of those 80%.

...or is it 90% Whatever guess I didn't read the recent Republican memo that all conservatives have to hate gays.

I don't know about that. But find me > 10% of tea bag or GOP policies that favor gay issues and I'll be impressed. Issue matter guys. You can't stick it to an interest group 24/7 on every policy and then turn around acting shocked like Hines Ward after a cheap shot.

Last edited by jb on Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orenthal wrote:As for JB's screed way up there I couldn't take his advice and not read. It was typical JB.

JB"Then you don't read what I write OJ. You really don't. It is just hat 80% of the time the right panders to the dumbest common denominator and it makes it easy for a rationalist like myself to puke bile. And yes, you are a right winger. Onto the next one."

I read pretty good. Nice suttle jab. I was the third guy to this line of thinking btw.

Ahh, now I see why yer all bent.

You think I called your dumb by association. I didn't. The machiavellian marionettes aren't dumb. Just really jaded. C'mon, you know the quotes about how the party leaders think about the 20% frindge. the quotes came out. That's what you are seeing the tea baggers take direct control this time.

If you can't watch much of this stuff and just scoff at dumb, I can't help you.

But no, I didn't call you dumb.

Edit - i also reread my takes. If any of those are crazy or pissy, I' at a loss. Not even a hint of any p-a to piss you off hit and run.

Had some good discussion going today on this stuff OJ. Let me know when you want in.

Personally, i'd like to shoot Glenn Beck and Hannity in the spine and leave 'em laying face down in the muck.

But "threat to America"? Sure if you're afraid of all those old farts in Florida who love 'em. What are they going to do? Make me watch Matlock 12 hours a day, eat my dinner at 4pm, or go to bed a at 9pm?

No idea really.

I figure the people in here are generally bright enough to take those talking heads and the networks they work for for what they are. On either side.

And if you're worried about the effect they're having on gen pop, well, get out there and educate gen pop.

We all know this Peeker.

the new wrinkle is the effect on having multiple POTUS canddate American Idol it out on the network.

What does that mean, or are we in such a hurry to run for the fuckin' jerseys we want to throw on ourselves or each other we are incapable of even discusing that isolated question.

( Now in faux meltdown mode; trying to think of an example movie scene, taking nominations, got nada, but I am f'n with you .)

Fuckin' dogmatic bitches, all of you! I have to spoon feed you to try to get some thoughts going and other than Z, rich and even fuckin' DU then watch you ignmorami fuck it up!

Q - In what are now more and more national based elections, is this the better way to go than strating in the Iowa, NH and SC small venue approachs where you hav eto talk to al sorts of people that have traditionally launched campaigns.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Hey! How about the Ohio Governor's race? Strickland has made up some ground, but I still expect Kasich to win.

It's seriously like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.

The more chronologically gifted I get, this is the shit that pushes me closer to FMB's mindset. Are either going to make any dfference? You want white chairs in a U or beige charirs in an O on the Titantic?

I stick to my guns you are not centrist. Able to give the other sides POV some weight, maybe. However 99% of the time you will then show why said POV is wrong, and then lay out 99% of the time prevailing left wing policy.

That is just what it is. I did, and always will take offense when someone points out I am ignorant in some way to the real truth. Mad, not close, cuz sometimes they are right. I came correct when called out on FDR starting the freeze on defense spending. On the centrist thing I am just not seein' it.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

jb wrote:Q - In what are now more and more national based elections, is this the better way to go than strating in the Iowa, NH and SC small venue approachs where you hav eto talk to al sorts of people that have traditionally launched campaigns.

Perhaps a one day national primary? It would sure as shit reduce the amount we have to see these hacks regurgitate. Does it really have a negative economic cost? Campaigns are an ever increasing transfer cost, whether through public or private donations.

We've only had the Iowa caucus since '74. Probably a better idea to do the national primary since the conventions have become nothing but dog and pony, backroom horse-tradin' (had too) deals being a thing of the distant pass.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

jb wrote:I don't know about that. But find me > 10% of tea bag or GOP policies that favor gay issues and I'll be impressed. Issue matter guys. You can't stick it to an interest group 24/7 on every policy and then turn around acting shocked like Hines Ward after a cheap shot.

The Tea Parties were supposed to be organized around fiscal issues, and as far as I can tell most of them still are. What you see are the media types latching onto the small minority who actually give a shit about social conservatism, and the people like Newt and Palin who are trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement to their own ends.

Also, I may be in the minority, but I am positive the correct term is "Tea Party movement". Their is no "Tea Party", let alone "tea bag" whatever. Seeing the legs the movement has gained, it will be up to history to see whether it is taken over by the GOP assholes, or becomes its own movement ala the early 20th century progressives.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:The "fiscal issues" the Tea Party rants about seems to be they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want the goverment to spend money.

And the problem with that is...

lol.

They have no plan.

I don't think the Tea Party movement is against Paul Ryan, who actually came up with a plan. Noted Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman, who is almost always wrong, is against Paul Ryan's plan to balance the budget, despite the fact that Ryan's plan is pretty much the only realistic way to accomplish it.

Do those of you on the left really think that the budget deficit can continue to grow unchecked forever?

Yes.......

Well, yes, it can, but at the cost of the downgrading of US debt obligations' credit ratings, and also inflation. Neither of those things are good if you care about small matters such as employment and economic growth.

Personally, i'd like to shoot Glenn Beck and Hannity in the spine and leave 'em laying face down in the muck.

But "threat to America"? Sure if you're afraid of all those old farts in Florida who love 'em. What are they going to do? Make me watch Matlock 12 hours a day, eat my dinner at 4pm, or go to bed a at 9pm?

No idea really.

I figure the people in here are generally bright enough to take those talking heads and the networks they work for for what they are. On either side.

And if you're worried about the effect they're having on gen pop, well, get out there and educate gen pop.

We all know this Peeker.

the new wrinkle is the effect on having multiple POTUS canddate American Idol it out on the network.

What does that mean, or are we in such a hurry to run for the fuckin' jerseys we want to throw on ourselves or each other we are incapable of even discusing that isolated question.

( Now in faux meltdown mode; trying to think of an example movie scene, taking nominations, got nada, but I am f'n with you .)

Fuckin' dogmatic bitches, all of you! I have to spoon feed you to try to get some thoughts going and other than Z, rich and even fuckin' DU then watch you ignmorami fuck it up!

Q - In what are now more and more national based elections, is this the better way to go than strating in the Iowa, NH and SC small venue approachs where you hav eto talk to al sorts of people that have traditionally launched campaigns.

I submit it doesn't matter how they go. Whether it be national or 'local' caucus it still comes down to media manipulation of two polarized party bases.

Win over the reality TV watchers and you've got a shot. Better yet, win Facebook and Twitter. Now you're cooking with fire.

What you're presiding over is a sucking cesspool of ignorance and stupidity, but it's yours to fuck up if you can grab the Real Housewives and Top Chef crowd. It's 2010 and the age of slick marketing and technology. Iowa was a flyover state 50 years. Might as well officially condemn it to just that now. It's an irrelevant state and it's actually a nuisance for the media monsters to lug there shit all the way out there for a dog and pony show.

Sorry dude. I'm already at FMB stage. It's a mess beyond fixing. Still people profiting regardless of how bad things actually are. Teach your kids to be the profiteers and they'll have a shot at a nice life. Civic responsibility is for suckers and have-nots.

Oddly enough, this is dead nuts on. Healthcare is a prime example- if you don't have any, you're all over Obama's bandwagon. If you do have it, you're pissed because your money is being used for other people, again.

The have-not's want to get ahead, the suckers think law makers care about what they have to say, and the rest of us just bend over and relax.

Now businesses can buy (openly) candidates. Think that will help? I've sent letters to my Reps, voted in elections and tried to do the right thing. And it all turns to shit. Every time.

Republicans, Democrats, Tea Baggers. Doesn't matter. If you have money, people listen. The other 99% can fornicate themselves with an iron bar.

Erie Warrior wrote:Now businesses can buy (openly) candidates. Think that will help? I've sent letters to my Reps, voted in elections and tried to do the right thing. And it all turns to shit. Every time.

This has been true since the beginning of time. Those with money and influence will always have a bigger say then the "working man". (Think Union leadership vs. rank-and-file) Better for that influence to be open and transparent then obfuscated.

It isn't that people are stupid. The process has just become so complicated that even the lawyers are having a hard time understanding the mumbo-jumbo.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

A couple of things...first the Tea Party....then the marriage debate...

It amazes me that the left (and the occasional "centrist") insist on imputing to the Tea Party movement an agenda and a worldview other than the one that they manifestly and loudly espouse. If I may be so bold as to summarize it:

...government spending and debt, at all levels...federal, state and local...are out of control, and we demand new leadership in both political parties in Washington that understands the crisis we are in, and will take bold political steps by way of reform to get us on a path to fiscal sustainability.

No more, no less.

It's not, as some in here are suggesting, "we don't want to pay taxes anymore". It is not, as many on the left suggest, "we are uncomfortable with a brown person in the White House"

It is simply this: There are too many people riding in the public cart, and not enough people pulling it...and this state of affairs is potentially ruinous if we don't solve the problem by shrinking (or at the very least, slowing the growth of) the public sector and growing the private sector...primarily via entitlement reform, tax reform, public pension reform, and overall economic growth.

The problem as I see it...and the urgent (and politically poisonous) message that nonetheless needs to be delivered...is that we are not approaching some dangerous "tipping point" off in the distant, or even the near future. The message that desperately needs to be ingested by the people is that the tipping point is in the rear view mirror. The status quo of unfunded entitlements in the public sector, in the form of everything from the military to the political class to the public pensions and benefits and salaries for teachers, firefighters, cops, social workers...all of it, is not potentially ruinous...it is right now ruinous, in the absence of radical reform.

The demographics of retiring boomers make this a problem that is going to get much worse before it gets better. The cart...riders and pullers.....

My main point here is that there are a great many Democrats and independents who are are in near total agreement with this rather simple statement of the crisis we face. The President himself has made statements along these lines in recent days that might just as well have come from the Tea Party Manifesto.

Like many of you here, I have very little faith that the GOP, when it rides to what looks like a decisive victory in November, will have the political courage to do what needs to be done. But it's a safe bet now that the people of America...certainly the all-important middle 20%, the so-called independents, believe that there is zero chance that Democrats will even take a significant step in that direction. Hence the polling showing a coming wipeout of Democrats in November.

I think it is a fair statement to make that the majority of people in the country today believe that the problems with out of control government spending and debt articulated at tea party rallies is a real one and a serious one. And if this is a view held by the majority, it is by definition not an "extreme" position.

So why and how can the Tea Party movement and the candidates it supports for political office, be considered "extremists" or for that matter...on the "far right"?

Somehow, the GOP "good old boy" incumbents in the House and Senate, who are routinely mocked and derided by the left as corrupt and self-serving, if not completely power mad...have morphed into "moderates" in contrast to the "extremists" represented by the Tea Party movement. What a strange state of affairs on the desperate Democratic left!

Sarah Palin, as the national "face" of the TP movement has also come to be defined by the left and the MSM (but I repeat myself) as being somehow on the "far right". (Maybe one of you lefties in here can point out to me which positions Palin has taken on political or public policy issues would constitute a threat to the Republic if her preferrred "far right" policies were to prevail.)

As a conservative, I am not necessarily comfortable with Palin as the standard bearer of the political party I generally favor, but let's get real about the level of "extremism" inherent in her policy positions, OK?

It is an insult to the Tea Partiers...(as a rule, a group of well-intentioned, law-abiding, tax-paying, patriotic, concerned, politically engaged citizens)...to suggest that they have taken to the streets in huge numbers, in the absence of any centrally organized leadership, to lie about their real agenda. It is unserious to impute racism or extremism to people who are so concerned about the fiscal direction of the country that they volunteer their time and money to deliver an unambiguous message to their elected political leaders about those concerns.

It is precisely that their message is so unambiguous that the Democrats (and certain Republican incumbents) are so desperate to turn their message into something...anything...other than what it so obviously is. And of course, to try and define it as "extreme" when it is clearly about as "mainstream" and widely held a position as can be found in the country today.

I see the White House as being so bound to their ideological zeal for redistribution of wealth, that they are unwilling to do more than give lip service to the policies necessary to foster the creation of wealth in the private sector. I should say it is a combination of ideology and economic incompetence.(Why should anyone have expected anything but economic incompetence from a man who has never run anything, let alone met a payroll or turned a profit?)

And it is the opposite of the pragmatism and bipartisanship platform on which Obama campaigned and was elected....but then most Americans can see that ideological rigidity now...to say nothing of the narcissism and condescension....just as many of us saw it and warned of it before the election.

Conservatives, me included, are facing a dilemma of their own these days. We are dispositionally opposed to radical change. We tend to respect tradition and value the lessons to be learned from the past. We favor incremental change, with an eye toward the possible unintended consequences of government policies. We are skeptical of government's ability to re-engineer society effectively, let alone efficiently. We believe that change is not synonymous with progress. We believe that good intentions do not trump, let alone excuse, the often malign results of government interventions, regulations and social engineering.

All that said, radical change is what we need to embrace when (not if) we reassume power in Washington. The direction of Obama's "transformation" of America for two years has been so radical and far-reaching that what is needed now is not a minor course correction of the kind normally favored by conservatives (by definition). What is needed is more of a 180 degree turn.

C.S. Lewis: “We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

This current imperative for radical reform runs counter to our nature, but it is what needs to happen...hence the dilemma. We will be called hypocrites. But we're used to being called worse than that for taking principled positions that leftists have trouble arguing against coherently. It is their default position when they have no argument. (as the Journolist scandal demonstrated nicely..."It doesn't matter who it is...pick one...Newt...call them racists")

The marriage debate in a subsequent post...

"I believe it is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." H.L. Mencken